Talk:2015 Mina stampede/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Iranian sources death toll

Iranian sources are bumping up the death toll too high, over 4,000 without any ground access in Saudi Arabia. Their source cannot be traced to the original source which is Saudi Arabia. The highest death toll which can be traced to original source is 1,100 which was provided by a Pakistani source. Pakistani official said in his statement that Saudi Arabia provided us photos of 1,100 dead for identification of our citizens.

I recommend we remove Iranian death toll until we have verification from multiple sources. We are cluttering the page by including multiple death tolls.

@Strivingsoul: Nothing in that url that you just posted, it takes you to the main page where there is nothing about over 4,000 dead. I did not want to revert your edit. That is why i am opening up this conversation. Sheriff (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Fars News Agency did issue a report claiming 4,173 deaths, the original page seems to be gone but I saved a cache. In any event, I agree that an outstanding claim like this from FNA, or any news source, should be treated with skepticism unless other more reliable sources confirm. ETA, second Iranian source (Al-Alam News Network) claiming 4173 dead, still live [1] - report credits Saudi's Health Ministry as source.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• This is somewhat fascinating. The Al-Alam report screenshots an Arabic page at press.moh.gov.sa, which appears to the Ministry of Health page for the Saudi government. I am having trouble pulling up that page, but did find the Google cache of it.[2] Google translate shows the article reporting that the original death toll of 769 has been increased to 4173, as photos of 4173 dead bodies now exist.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• The MOH twitter account denies the 4000+ figure in a tweet posted 33 minutes ago.[3].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• I am able to open the page and going to translate it, i think it is the denial message. Sheriff (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Latest is a claim that it was posted on the "old" Ministry of Health page and was a "hack".[4]. I do not really understand the mindset of these governments; but I guess enough people in Iran and elsewhere will believe the death toll was now much higher, regardless of what comes after, which would serve Iran's purposes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Translation of the headline: "Deputy Minister of Health: the high number of deaths stampede in Mina to 4173 people" , now we need to see which one is latest, the tweet or the news. Sheriff (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• I only can see the headline, cannot open the individual page so "hack" claim might be right. Sheriff (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the official death toll back to 769 at the top as it is the only OFFICIAL death toll. The 1,090 number is coming from foreign officials and is based on photographs, but no one has clarified this. Could there be cases in which there are multiple photos of the same person? There are so many numbers all through the article. Using a death toll through nationalities reported is not a good way either, because people can have multiple nationalities and therefore show up for both nationalities. We should use the official toll (at least for the figures given at the top) until there is some more clarity. Michael5046 (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I see several sources claiming 1,100, i will add one of those which traces back to more reliable original source than just photos. Sheriff (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I still think it is best to use the official death toll as the main figure, but note that foreign officials claim it to be higher. I think the most credible report so far about a higher toll is the one published by the BBC in the last hour. They quote a Nigerian official who is actually at the morgues in Jeddah where the bodies have been taken, and he says that a total of 1,075 bodies have been offloaded from trucks so far, though he adds that 4 trucks have not yet been dealt with. Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34391055 Michael5046 (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I had cited the 4000+ death toll figure, since PressTV claimed the Saudi authorities had approved the number. But now I see that although the report produces a screenshot of an apparently Saudi official statement admitting the number, it mentions that it was later denied by the same source. So the removal seems warranted until further updates Strivingsoul (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

After seeing http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34391055, i am willing to adjust the total to 769, if it is already set then it's good, i did not see the page for a long time now. Sheriff (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

References

The source 42 Niger Express shows to me 19 deads, nevertheless in the footnote are 22 deads marked. In the list of the nationalities of victims I changed the numbers, but I was not successful to change the numbers in the RefList. Does anybody help pls?--Suzika (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

More Rumors

Heads up, there's now a rumor claiming that the stampede was cause by gas. But as per this source [5], the officials denied this claim. Ayub407^talk 15:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Most causalities from Iran, Nigeria, Egypt, India but no causalities from Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait

Can anyone please share any source which explain why most causalities are from Iran, Nigeria, Egypt, India and there are not any causalities from Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Think05 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

All the causalities written here are based on the sources mentioned. We do not know whether the citizens of countries like Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait were involved in the incident. And also, news sources and the officials of these countries did not release any information mentioning the causalities of their citizens. Ayub407^talk 17:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Because the majority of Muslims are not from the Arabian Peninsula. The gulf states are incredibly under populated, and India, despite being majority Hindu, has one of the largest Muslim populations on Earth '''tAD''' (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually belive it is because every camp has a time schedule for when to move from one place to another to mantain order, and at that time these camps were moving at that place. I.Sharif 20:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0L0NEL999 (talk • contribs)

As per my observation, mostly, Shias and Hanafis and Shafees perform stoning of devil at day time (preferably at morning and before sunset time) and Hanbalis perform the stoning of the devil at evening and night time, may be due to their religious rulings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Think05 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The other possibility is that the route to Jamarat for the pilgrims of Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, USA and European countries be different from route 204 to Jamarat.Think05 (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to tell at this point, but this was the impression I was getting too - that pilgrims were in groups based on nationality, maybe by their own choice? This would be a good question to source and mention in the article, IMO. Dcs002 (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We would need some sourcing, but the deaths in the 1990 Hajj stampede were also unevenly divided by nationality because different routes are taken from different camps. There was an article i saw few days ago, I think from an Indonesian or Malaysian source, that said they expected few deaths from their country because their pilgrims take a different route.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to note I came across a relevant reference to the division of nationalities in the book Best Travel Writing 2005: True Stories from Around the World, an entry by Murad Kalam [6], he says "I was informed that not only was a package tour was required, but tours were segregated by nationality. I would be lumped in with ninety-eight other American Muslims." (p.168).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Number of deceased

The number of deceased seems to be arbitrarily changing. The table currently says 4,100. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It stems from the confusion over the actual toll. There's a lot of controversy surrounding the fatalities, with claims that the Saudis are covering it up to a degree. Some outlets support the claim of over 4,000 while the official report from Saudi Arabia is 769. People will keep trying to add the higher totals but we go by what the official statement is unless there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Anyways, I've reverted the change to the table. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and thank you for policing the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The infobox on the right should only include the official toll. The details can be discussed elsewhere but the box should contain 'facts' only. As far as I know the official death toll is still at 769 (not 'at least 769').--الدبوني (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User: SheriffIsInTown Sorry but there are not '20 confirmed sources' for the 1,000+ death toll. The Saudis said the 1,000+ figure included deaths other than the stampede. I'm not opposed to including these higher death tolls further down in the article but the one in the top line and in the infobox should be the official one.--الدبوني (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

الدبوني I do not agree with that. Wikipedia is not a place to carry on Saudi Arabia's official version. We should be including highest confirmed death toll from the table below. You can check every original source for every country in the table, they are confirmed death tolls from the incident which happened on 24 September 2015 and not overall death tolls from the Hajj so if House of Saud is trying to cover up the actual death toll then we cannot be a tool to that. I, myself adjusted the death toll to 769 when they came out and clarified that 1,100 pictures, they gave to Pakistanis or any other country included pictures of those who died for any other reason but now when confirmed death tolls from the incident which happened on 24 September 2015 have exceeded the 1,100 mark then why we should carry Saudi Arabia's version. Either death tolls from individual countries need to be adjusted so they come under 769 or match that number which i do not think we should be doing or the total need to be reflective of the confirmed total. Sheriff (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep claimed death tolls from individual countries at what sources say. The Saudi official death toll can perhaps be highlighted by another row at the bottom of the table, so that we have a "Total" and "Official total." Additionally, we should soon consider splitting this list out, as it has become rather large in proportion to the article itself. Mamyles (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Mamyles, After User:Dragons flight's last edit, it mentions both tolls in the heading so i think this should be good enough and acceptable. Adding rows with "Total" and "Official total" will be confusing because "Total" is also actually "Official total" in which official totals of many countries are involved so why should we call Saudi total, an official total. Sheriff (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad numbers

The death and injury tolls are inconsistent with what is on the main page. One of these things needs to change.17:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)-Mr. Man (talk)

Corrected the issue on the main page; the numbers there are meant to be general so we don't have to constantly update it. The toll was stable at "at least 1,100" which warranted the update there. Only dropped back to 769 recently. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

To avoid the confusion, it is suggested to change the total number of deceased to the sum of the total deaths so far, total number of injured to sum of total injured so far and total number of missing to total number of missing so far and remove the "Unknown" row at the end of the table. The table will remain same even if the official death toll is changing.Think05 (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should keep the table as it is with "Unknown" row and "Total" row. This reflects correct toll. Sheriff (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Updating unknown "Injured" is not logical. Injured are decreasing everyday after getting treatment from hospitals. Therefore total injured are decreasing day by day and the same cannot be matched with initial 934 injured (official reported number). Therefore, I would suggest to put N/A for Unknown injured and keep "Total" injured as the sum of injured for all countries at present.Think05 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about that, that we will never know, the actual number of injured by this disaster. Not sure how to keep track of that number because even if people get well and get released from the hospital, they should still be considered injured in result of this disaster and should be counted as injured but on the other side if an injured dies, he/she should be counted as deceased and injured number should decrease by that number. It's very confusing. How does other pages like that keep track of injured? Sheriff (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Disaster: ...Menna was " Intentional"

Maybe just me, but what is Menna? It only appears once in this article, described as something believed by some to be intentional, but I can't find it defined, other than an ancient Egyptian scribe. Help?Dcs002 (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

update death toll

The first paragraph must be updated. As mentioned in the table "Nationalities of victims", the total number is 1,194. It's no longer "around 800 people" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alijsh (talk • contribs) 04:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have changed that but when Saudis wake up every morning, they change them back according to their king's decree. So, it's an uphill battle. Sheriff (report) 12:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding repeatedly

The IP:188.53.150.12 adds the same lines repeatedly after every few hours. Please someone take notice.Think05 (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I warned the user for not for not following the neutral point of view while editing the article. Ayub407^talk 15:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The IP is insistent to include that little anti-Iran paragraph with a source. Why don't we include that and be done with it? We have so much anti-Saudi opinion in the page. Why can't we include a small Anti-Iran paragraph. They claim that a group of Iranian pilgrims tried to defy the rules. It's a definite possibility given the recent political tensions. That might be the reason why majority of the deceased are Iranians. After all, Iranians seiged the Holy Kaaba in the 70s, why can't they try to do something like this now causing Saudi security to intervene to capture their ambassador while they might have tries to defy the capture causing the crush. There are a lot of theories out there about Roknabadi, the missing ambassador. Sheriff (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We can not really speculate here. If that was the reason for the incident, Iranian officials must have spoken out by now. The anti-Iranian paragraph is at best a claim by Saudis, we should not cite it as a fact. We should properly balance the claims by Saudis by claims from other nationalities and governments including Iran. But you are also making a strange claim here the "siege of the Holy Kabba in the 70s by Iranians". I am not really sure which incident you're referring to. As you can see at Incidents during the Hajj there have been only fire and airplane crash incidents in the 1970s, and never such a thing as siege or any incident involving Iranians. But I guess you might have meant 1987 Mecca incident. But in this incident as well there was not such a thing as siege, and you might have been recalling a vague old memory imprinted by Saudi propaganda in the minds of many muslims following that incident. But that incident in reality was not about siege. As you can see in the incident page this tragedy took place when Iranian pilgrims started chanting slogans against United States and Israel during Hajj as part of the Islamic tradition of Bira'at min-al Mushrikin (disassociating oneself from the polytheists, i.e. the muslims' enemies), and this legitimate Islamic practice was reportedly met by violent crackdown and gunfire by the Saudi police. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That too but I was mainly talking about Grand Mosque seizure, now you will go and check that Wikipedia page and say it was done by a guy from Najd, no I don't think it was just that simple and done by a guy from Najd, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been on each other's throats for a very long and there was Iranian involvement in both these incidents and I was talking about that perspective. At least you accept that because of Iranians, guns were fired near holy mosque in 1987 so there could be a possibility that something like that was going on now as well. As for not allowing biased opinions from Saudis then why we are allowing biased opinion from Ayatollah. Sheriff (report) 12:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The conflicts between Iran and Saudi Arabia started a few years after 1979 Iranian Revolution. Prior to that there were not frictions. The Grand Mosque seizure also had nothing to do with Iran whatsoever as is clear from the Wiki page which also says the former leader of Iran Ayatollah Khomeini had in fact condemned the takeover! As I said baseless speculations of "I think..." sorts have no say in deciding content in Wikipedia. We should stick to Wikipedia rules. The claim that Iranians caused the Hajj stampede is an extraordinary claim that was not even insisted on later by Saudis themselves. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the Anti-Iran paragraph the reason why his/her edits are always getting reverted. If you see the diffs [7] He mentioned that "However, instead of accepting their fault in not properly training Iranian pilgrims for the event, the Iranian govt blamed the Saudi govt. Iran, obviously" which appears to be written as an original research which is not allowed. Ayub407^talk 15:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

In another way, WP:NPV is not maintained here. Ayub407^talk 15:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You are right, original research should not be allowed, i thought you were referring to the whole paragraph which he is constantly adding and Pro-Saudis are removing it. Sheriff (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As long as WP:NPV is maintained, it won't be removed. Also, I'm surprised that no one warned the IP editor after reverting his/her edit. Ayub407^talk 16:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• All the story is reported from an unknown Iranian official! by the way, we are not here to make such speculations and we have to act based on the reliable sources, instead. This claim, besides being WP:UNDUE, is not reliable and should be removed. Please note not to restore the material unless a consensus is formed. Per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Definition of stampede

According to Wikipedia (and you will find similar in Chambers, Oxford etc), "A stampede is an act of mass impulse among herd animals or a crowd of people in which the herd (or crowd) collectively begins running with no clear direction or purpose." Does that accurately describe what we know of the unfortunate events near Mecca, which are the subject of this article? As at least one contributor has already suggested on this talk Page, perhaps it does not. Does it not imply fault to some extent at least on the part of those involved? At least, that they were acting irrationally? Does it not also imply a speed of movement, which does not chime with the description of events? Were the people involved in these events, "running with no clear direction or purpose"? It doesn't sound right to me and I'd be keen to hear what others think with a view to an edit. One possibly alternative is "crush". I expect there are others. Stratfordjohns (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Stampede" is the standard term for this type of disaster, although we should probably split "Human stampede" out of the Stampede article as the term has a slightly different meaning in the context of human crowds. 2601:644:101:9616:4D1C:78CE:3547:D79D (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, unsigned, but in what sense is it "the standard term for this type of disaster"; that it is sometimes or even commonly used in connection? And what do you mean by "this type of disaster"? Is any disaster in which a number of people are killed by crushing a "stampede"? What I am questioning is whether the term accurately describes what we know of the events; for that you need to refer to definitions. Not suggesting bad faith in any way but simply asserting that it's "the standard term" seems rather to side-step the question. Does the definition fit in your view? To relate it to another disaster mentioned elsewhere on this Talk page, I'm not convinced many people familiar with the events would describe Hillsborough as a "stampede" and wonder, if they did, what the reaction would be from relatives of victims and survivors. Not favourable, I suspect. Do other contributors have a perspective on this this, please? I would like to propose an edit to remove "stampede", which I think is wholly inaccurate, but not before reading other opinions. Stratfordjohns (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)--Stratfordjohns (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Incidents such as these are always referred as "stampede" so we should keep this word unless we have another term for this incident and then change all "stampede" articles with that name. Moreover, most news also refers this incident as "stampede" since we go by sources thus we should keep this term. Sheriff (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but this seems to be very much the same argument as unsigned. Or rather, a simple assertion that it is standard usage - not an argument - with no evidence and no reference to a definition or definitions of the word or to the sources that have been or are using the word "stampede"? What are the sources of "most news" referred to? Could we see examples, please? I won't claim to have done an exhaustive search but it is not a term I am seeing in news media in the UK. Only Wikipedia, that I have come across; hence my raising the point. Is it being generally used elsewhere? Which are the other "stampede" articles being referred to? It doesn't appear the case to me that "stampede" is uniformly used even on Wikipedia. People might like to refer to the Talk page for Hillsborough to see other views on this, including on the link between the Stampede and Hillsborough articles, given that the latter contains not a single use of the word "stampede". Reasons: because it wasn't one. Does anyone else have an argument that isn't a solely based on an assertion that everyone always used this term for incidents "such as these". Thanks.--86.178.37.177 (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. Comments unsigned above are mine but - Doh! - had not signed in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratfordjohns (talk • contribs) 08:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sheriff. Have just found your subsequent comments under the similar topic below and have added some of my own. Regards. --Stratfordjohns (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Stratfordjohns: As you might have seen my note below in a different section. My opinion have been changed about not changing the name. I am all for removing "stampede" from the name but i am totally confused as to what should we call it. I think word "Hajj" should be replaced with "Mina" or "Mecca" which has already been done and i am for replacing word "stampede" with a single word "crush" or "disaster". Two words such as "crush disaster" will make it cumbersome. Sheriff (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In my experience if it happens in a Western country (Love parade, Hillsborough), it is referred to as a "human crush" in the news media, while if it happens in Mecca or in India during a Hindu festival etc it is called a "stampede" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.104.70 (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that it's only some dialects of Westerners who would call this a (human) crush. British English would probably instantly understand things like "2 people died during the 2001 crush". American Westerners would likely be confused by that sentence. The site of the definitive US dictionary doesn't list crush as a type of disaster, only as an clearly hyperbolic synonym of crowd that doesn't mention injury (their example sentence: "Outside the hotel stood a crush of reporters waiting for her arrival"). For whatever reason crushing to death must also include mere squeezing in British English, though constriction makes a point out of snakes not killing by crushing. Also for whatever reason, in America stampede is just the normal term for this type of event, despite being technically inaccurate (like how "inner city" is often geometrically inaccurate). It doesn't mean to compare people to animals or imply something resembling an animal stampede here though I can see how people would want it changed if it's not used for humans in their dialect of English. List of human stampedes (sorry, I didn't name it) seems to have a lot of these events named simply "disaster". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion it is better to call it "2015 Mina Disaster" just like 1990 disaster Isarinia (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This long and excellent article in The Guardian suggests that the word "stampede" offends those who actually study crowd crush phenomena. The suggestion that "mass panic" causes crowd crush incidents seems to have things backwards: "People don't die because they panic", says one expert, "people panic because they are dying". I recommend reading the whole article, to get a sense of the physics (for lack of a better word) of how these disasters are generally understood to happen. It definitely changed my mind about probable (though unintended) bias in the article's title and throughout the lede section. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK proposal?

There are more than 3,000 victims of the 2015 stampede in Mina, Saudi Arabia but none of them is Saudi national? 98.112.79.59 (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the suggestion, I think we should mention that no Saudis were killed in the incident and only few victims belonged to Arab nations. Sheriff (report) 13:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The article has appeared on "In the News" before and hence is not eligible to be shown in DYK box, unfortunately.Mhhossein (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• This would have been a loaded and controversial hook anyway. Pilgrims are grouped by nationality in the tent cities, so deaths in these stampedes usually cluster in fewer countries, depending where and when the stampede occurs. Perhaps the international outcry for this event will be different than in past stampedes and lead to more serious reforms.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Missing and the Deceased

This article documents and updates the total numbers of dead, injured and missing. As reported by the NYTimes and other reliable sources Pakistan Moves to Quiet Outcry Against Saudi Arabia Over Hajj Stampede there may be ongoing attempts to suppress the death toll by categorizing them as missing. Iran originally reported over 200 missing, over 200 deceased. Within a few days it became clear that nearly all of the missing were dead, and that the total of missing + deceased accurately reflected the true death toll. This appears to be the case also with Pakistan and other countries, by watching the statistical trends in the deceased and missing columns. So the sum of confirmed deceased and confirmed missing points to a possible maximum death toll. Thus, when the total number of those confirmed by their home countries to be missing in the wake of this incident is taken into account, the maximum death toll could reach as high as 2798 (as of October 6, 2015).--‎ Heavenlyhermes

• Please keep in mind that we are not an original reporting source, however. We need to cite reliable sources for the number of dead. This can be frustrating, I know, because it requires good reporting to be done in an area where getting accurate information is difficult (and that NY Times article you cite gives me hope). I was just expanding 1994 Hajj stampede, and it appears very likely that more than 270 people died there; some reports estimated the death toll could go over 1,000, and then the reporting stopped, and we now have 270 as the official figure.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Of course we are not an original reporting source. However, we are required to be consistent with our own numbers, as reported and updated in the Table of Nationalities of the deceased, missing and injured. Further, we have the statistical trends of this incident available, as in the case of Iran and other countries, so the 1994 incident is not statistically relevant.Heavenlyhermes (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And we are consistent with our own numbers, we have sum of the numbers from the table in info table on the top and in the heading as well but i have a strong objection to include a speculative unsourced paragraph that you have been trying to include where you say

Thus, when the total number of those confirmed by their home countries to be missing in the wake of this incident is taken into account, the maximum death toll could reach as high as 2798 (as of October 6, 2015).

As an encyclopedia, this is not our place to speculate that death toll could reach as high as 2,798. It might reach and you are welcome to update the article with that number when the death toll reaches that high. Sheriff (report) 18:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• 1. This is an "ongoing event". 2. It is not a "personal opinion" or "speculation" that 2+2=4; adding numbers is math, not speculation. 3. That the missing, when found, are overwhelmingly turning up in the deceased column is not "personal opinion" or "speculation". The NYT and others are reporting attempts to suppress the totals by manipulating the numbers of missing; that is not "personal opinion" or "speculation". The sum of missing+deceased gives a current scientific maximum ceiling to the total deceased; that is not "personal opinion" or "speculation". Kindly refrain from reverting until the dispute is resolved; those are Wikipedia's rules, not "personal opinion" or "speculation". Thanks!Heavenlyhermes (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no point of opening a discussion while you continue with your reverts and edit warring. Your saying that it is not speculative does not change it from being speculative. The paragraph you are insistent to include is unsourced, disputed, speculative and ugly. It does not have right language or flow of language in it. It is misplaced. The words "at minimum" are misplaced as well. "At least" is better and adds flow to the sentence. Please remove that paragraph, reach consensus here, let other editors comment on it and if more editors thought that it should be included then i have no problem with the inclusion. Sheriff (report) 18:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but just because one calls oneself a "Sheriff" does not make it so. It is the self-appointed sheriff who is engaged in edit-warring by continual reverts. You have not responded to a single point made above, nor have you refuted the sourced NYT article. Instead, you engage in subjective attacks (using words like "ugly" and "right language flow"). That's ad hominem and a red herring.Heavenlyhermes (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk about the message and not the messenger, NYT article does not say that all the missing could turn up dead and the total could be as high as 2,798. That is your speculation, it is not sourced. Sheriff (report) 18:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The sum of the two numbers cited within this very article provide an objective ceiling for maximum deaths, using 'objective' in the quantificational, scientific sense. One could consider various rephrasings, that I am open to. The sense of the word 'maximum', in tandem with the other points, makes it an objective observation, not speculation.Heavenlyhermes (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It is still not objective observation, it is still a speculation. The dead can still be more than that sum. Some injured could turn up dead or there could be a flaw in reporting of missing numbers. We cannot just speculate that as of this this and that date we have so many dead and so many missing and when we add them up, the death toll could be this and that. We should leave that to reader to come to that conclusion. Our readers are smart. Let them come to their own conclusion. Sheriff (report) 19:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "the dead can still be more than that sum", but we only have the figures that we have. To go beyond that would indeed be speculation. For an ongoing event, the numbers in the table change every day, sometimes more than once a day. We shouldn't have one standard for the table and another for the text. 'Maximum' means "maximum possible based on the best figures we have at the moment". That's a useful figure to have (for discussion, analyses, etc.): I also think readers are smart enough to see what 'maximum' means in this context as well ;-)Heavenlyhermes (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The table of death by nationality is great, let's keep it well-referenced.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)